Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012."— Presentation transcript:

1 NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012

2 Draft – March Check for Updates to this Presentationhttp://www.ncpublicschools.org/ready/resources/ Materials for Today Materials will be posted to NC Public Schools website in next five days 2/10/2014 page 2

3 Draft – March Check for Updates to this Presentationhttp://www.ncpublicschools.org/ready/resources/ Overview for Today 10:00 – 10:30 Context 10:30 – 11:15 Educator Effectiveness Policies 11:15 – 11:30 Data Quality 11:30 – 12:00 EVAAS Roster Verification 12:00 – 1:00Lunch 1:00 – 2:00 Common Exams 2:00 – 2:30 Local Planning Template 2:30 – 3:00 ASIS Updates 3:00 – 4:00 Local Planning Time 2/10/2014 page 3

4 Setting the Context 2/10/2014 page 4

5 Getting Students READY The central focus of READY is improving student learning... by enabling and ensuring great teaching. 2/10/2014 page 5

6 New Standard Course of Study Balanced Assessment System New Accountability Model Strong Leaders A Fair Evaluation System Support in Low-Achieving LEAs and Schools Improved Supply of Teachers Tools and Training to Improve Practice PROJECT MAP 2/10/2014 page 6

7 What is our goal? Student Readiness Achievement and growth for all students Great Teachers and Leaders An effective teacher in every classroom and leader in every school Before Teaching and Leading Develop effective teachers and leaders in preparation programs During Teaching and Leading Use meaningful evaluation and professional development to increase effectiveness of teachers and leaders 2/10/2014 page 7

8 Why educator effectiveness? So why is the State focusing on educator effectiveness in the face of so many other changes? NC is implementing a new curriculum, new assessments, new technology tools to improve instruction, new ways of engaging students, and the list goes on… Because all our efforts in other areas depend on an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school building.

9 Why educator effectiveness? Every student in North Carolina deserves an effective teacher in all courses and grades. The work around educator effectiveness, including the Measures of Student Learning, is grounded in the belief that: Our students need to learn all of the standards in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in order to be READY for their futures.

10 Why educator effectiveness? Every teacher in North Carolina deserves feedback on the growth of their students. In order to increase their effectiveness, teachers need access to high-quality data. Its not about firing our way to a better teaching force. Its about creating a system that: Identifies the strongest teachers so that we can all learn from them, and Identifies those teachers who need additional support and targets that support to their needs

11 Educator Effectiveness Policies

12 Big Question: What is the best approach to Educator Evaluation and how do we get NC there? How do we get there? 2/10/2014 page 12

13 Top 25% Bottom 25% Observation Tool Observation Tool + Student Survey + Growth (Value-Add) State Math State ELA Observation Tool + Student Survey Top 25% Bottom 25% Top 25% Bottom 25% Months of Learning Gained or Lost Observation + Other Measures Re-creation of chart from Gathering Feedback For Teaching,

14 Evaluation Tools Standards 1-5 Some Assessments to Measure Growth Standard 8 Standards 1-7 End of Grade End of Course VoCATs Standard 6 End of Grade End of Course VoCATs From the MET… Observation Tools Assessments to Measure Growth Student Survey Exploring Piloted in 47 LEAs in What We Have

15 What do we need? Standard 6 and 8 We need a state-adopted growth model and a fair 6 & 8 rating strategy Status We need an overall method to determine educator effectiveness status Measures of Student Learning (MSLs) For those grades and subjects that are currently non- tested, we need ways to measure growth Observation + Other Measures 2/10/2014 page 15

16 Standards 6 & 8 – The Basics Teachers Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success Principals (and other Administrators) Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Academic Achievement Leadership 2/10/2014 page 16

17 Growth Model Teachers Principals 6 Contribute to Academic Success Academic Achievement Leadership 8 Standard 6 and 8 are measures of Growth 2/10/2014 page 17

18 Growth Model Teachers Principals 6 Contribute to Academic Success Academic Achievement Leadership 8 We will use Educator Value-Added Assessment System EVAAS for standards 6 & 8 when possible 2/10/2014 page 18

19 Growth Model Teachers Principals 6 Contribute to Academic Success Academic Achievement Leadership 8 How do Value-Added models work? They measure growth by predicting how well a student will do on an assessment. How do they predict how well the student will do? They look at previous test scores and estimate how well the student should do at the end of the year. Every student must grow based on where they start. 2/10/2014 page 19

20 Ratings Teachers Principals 6 Contribute to Academic Success Academic Achievement Leadership 8 How will the ratings on Standards 6 & 8 work? 2/10/2014 page 20

21 Principal Rating Categories Principals 5 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Developing Proficient Accomplished Distinguished 3 Rating Categories Does not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Strategic Leadership 8 Academic Achievement Leadership 2/10/2014 page 21

22 Teacher Ratings Categories Teachers Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Developing Proficient Accomplished Distinguished 3 Rating Categories Does not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth 2/10/2014 page 22

23 Ratings Teachers Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories3 Ratings Categories Why the difference? Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6 & 8 improves certainty of categorization.

24 Teacher Ratings in School-wide EVAAS Growth Teacher EVAAS Growth 70% 30% Weighted Average Yearly Rating Does not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included? To encourage collaboration and collective ownership of overall outcomes. Note: In , teachers without individual EVAAS growth will have school-wide growth for Standard 6. 6

25 Teacher Ratings in Yearly Rating Does not Meet Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth Sixth standard ratings available in two locations: 1.Rating only will be back-populated into the McREL tool and available to see on the 2011 – 2012 summary rating forms 2.Rating and component data available in EVAAS 6 Teacher-level EVAAS reports available at end of September 11 (estimated) Teacher sixth standard ratings available at end of September

26 Teacher Ratings in School-wide EVAAS Growth Teacher EVAAS Growth Weighted Average Yearly Rating Does not Expected Growth Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth 6 Student Surveys (?) 2012 – 2013 is the first year of data for all teachers and school administrators who have their own data Possible additional element 2/10/2014 page 26

27 Principal Ratings Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support Standards 8 rating will be determined using school-wide EVAAS growth School-wide EVAAS Growth Yearly Rating Does not Meet Expectations Meets Expected Growth Exceeds Expected Growth 8 2/10/2014 page 27

28 Ratings Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Academic Achievement Leadership Teachers Principals Key Note on Ratings Every educator is evaluated every year Each standard and rating stands on its own (1 out of 6, not 1/6) Ratings are used to create professional development plans each year Ratings are used to determine status

29 Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support What is the difference between Ratings and Status? 2/10/2014 page 29

30 Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support RatingsStatus Teachers 6 separate ratings to help teachers grow each year Principals 8 separate ratings to help principals grow each year A single overall status that is determined once a principal or teacher has three years of growth data to populate 6 or 8 Categories for Status 1.In Need of Improvement 2.Effective 3.Highly Effective 2/10/2014 page 30

31 Status and Standard 6 & 8 Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support An educator receives an effectiveness status only once she has 3 years of data on Standard 6 or 8 A 3-year rolling average of growth data from standard 6 or 8 is used as part of determining overall status 2/10/2014 page 31

32 3-Year Rolling Average 66 Contribute to Academic Success Met Expected Growth -2.5 Did not meet Expected Growth 1.2 Met Expected Growth Rating from Rating from Rating from Standard 3 =.2 Met Expected Growth 3- year average rating on standard 6 for determining status Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well. Note: The values above represent values from the MRM model in EVAAS. 2/10/2014 page 32

33 Three Years of Data 2/10/2014 page 33 Any three years of data attributable to a teacher or principal will be combined and used: Any grades Any subjects Any schools Any districts The three years of data do not start until they are specific to that teacher and his or her students

34 Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support So once a educator has a three-year average rating for Standard 6 or 8, how is status determined? 2/10/2014 page 34

35 Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support The Three Status Categories are 1.In Need of Improvement 2.Effective 3.Highly Effective 2/10/2014 page 35

36 Teacher Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support In Need of Improvement Effective Highly Effective Standards 1-5 In the year Standard 6 Three-year rolling average years ago 1 year ago This year ++ / 3 ) ) Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Any rating lower than proficient And/Or Does Not Meet Expected Growth Proficient or Higher on Standards 1-5 And Meets or Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished or Higher on Standards 1-5 And Exceeds Expected Growth

37 Principal Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support In Need of Improvement Effective Highly Effective Standards 1-7 In the year Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Any rating lower than proficient Standard 8 Three-year rolling average And/Or Does Not Meet Expected Growth years ago 1 year ago This year ++ / 3 ) ) Proficient or Higher on Standards 1-7 And Meets or Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished or Higher on Standards 1-7 And Exceeds Expected Growth

38 What Will Teachers See? Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support Ratings on Standards 1 – 5 of the Educator Evaluation System (as recorded in online tool) Standard 6 rating (current year and 2 prior years) Three-year rolling average of student growth values and accompanying Standard 6 rating (for Status determination) Overall Effectiveness Status 2/10/2014 page 38

39

40

41

42 Detail on the Sixth Standard Rating

43 Data Quality

44 Data Quality Reminders 2/10/2014 page 44 Online NC Educator Evaluation System: Only actual teachers and principals should be entered into the online NC Educator Evaluation System All teachers and principals should have a Unique ID entered in the online NC Educator Evaluation System

45 Data Quality Reminders 2/10/2014 page 45 Exception Children and Their Teachers: An HQ teacher must instruct EC students in the classroom, not only in NCWISE Co-teachers are responsible for the instruction of all students; enter in NCWISE as teacher 1 and teacher 2

46 Data Quality Reminders 2/10/2014 page 46 NCWISE: For grades 3 – 5, schedule students separately for ELA, Math, Social Studies and Science Assign final marks for students in grades 3 – 12 Use appropriate course codes If possible, record teacher addresses in NCWISE

47 Data Quality Reminders 2/10/2014 page 47 Additional guidance coming soon for NCWISE coordinators

48 Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams

49 Measures of Student Learning Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams are being designed for non-tested subjects for district use to populated Standard 6 2/10/2014 page 49

50 Focusing on the Why So why have statewide Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams? 1.North Carolina has a statewide evaluation system to ensure that every teacher receives a fair and consistent evaluation, regardless of his or her employing LEA 2.Teachers in all content areas should receive a Standard Six rating based on the growth of their own students on their content-specific standards 3.Most LEAs do not have the capacity to design their own assessments for all non state-tested grades and subjects 2/10/2014 page 50

51 LEA-NCDPI Partnership Prior to submitting a Race to the Top application, LEA superintendents and the NCDPI came to an agreement on how to measure student growth for the grades and subjects not assessed with state exams: StepDescriptionOwner OneDesign statewide assessments NCDPI (with teacher input) TwoAdminister new assessments LEAs/Charter Schools ThreeDetermine growth with data from new assessments NCDPI 2/10/2014 page 51

52 In a Typical LEA… Human Resources Director Testing Coordinator Trains all staff on the evaluation process, including Standard Six Explains the purpose of the MSLs Ensures data quality throughout system Retrieves the MSLs from the secure shell Manages administration Scans answer sheets through Winscan 2/10/2014 page 52

53 Using Student Growth Guide Provides information on what assessments must be administered, how growth will be calculated with assessment results, and how teacher growth values will be determined Divided into content/grade-specific sections 2/10/2014 page 53

54 Decision Tree for Administration 2/10/2014 page 54

55 Implementation Guide FINAL version for the Fall 2012 – 2013 administration Balances between LEA flexibility in implementation and the need to collect secure data to send to EVAAS Will be revised after any Fall 2012 administrations prior to launch of Spring 2013 administration Outlines decisions that LEAs need to make about implementation of the MSLs 2/10/2014 page 55

56 Implementation Options Administration of the high school MSLs in the fall is optional If a district chooses to administer, all MSLs must be administered If a district chooses to administer, results will be used to determine the sixth standard rating. 2/10/2014 page 56

57 Implementation Guide Part I - Context Provides a summary of the educator evaluation system Outlines the purpose of the MSLs Inclusion in the guide does not imply that testing coordinators are responsible for training on the evaluation system or Standard 6 Acknowledges that teachers are also an audience for the guide and need to understand how the MSLs connect with educator effectiveness Separate guide on how assessment data are used to measure growth is available 2/10/2014 page 57

58 Implementation Guide Part II - Timelines Timeline of administration for the MSLs Fall 2012 – 2013 administration is OPTIONAL Superintendents must notify Dr. Garland by October 1 if district will be administering this fall Testing window Up to LEA discretion Data from Fall 2012 administration due February 1, 2013 Data from Spring 2013 administration due June 28, 2013 No retesting (unless misadministration declared) Administration should not extend testing window MSLs designed to be administered during normal class period or during exam week 2/10/2014 page 58

59 Implementation Guide Part II – Length and Population Length of the High School 2012 MSLs 90 minutes MSLs broken into two 45-minute sections to allow for administration in non-block schedules Testing population All 4 – 12 students (with or without classroom accommodations) LEP students who meet eligibility criteria Not required for students being instructed on the Extended Content Standards No alternative assessments for EXTEND 2 population; districts not required to create their own assessments 2/10/2014 page 59

60 Implementation Guide Part II – Online Administration Online administration LEAs may administer through existing online assessment programs as long as: The items are uploaded through a method that preserves the integrity of any images The program can export data in the required form (required file format will be released soon) Plans are in place for security of the MSLs The NCDPI cannot support online administration Note: The same form of the MSL will be used in Fall 2012 and Spring That form will then be released, and a new form will be available for use in 2013 – /10/2014 page 60

61 Implementation Guide Part II – Paper Administration Paper and pencil administration NCDPI will provide PDF files of all MSLs (~November 8) One PDF for regular administration One PDF that includes the common large-print and one item per page modifications LEAs are responsible for printing Elimination of school-level expenses for printing and Scantron sheets for teacher-designed final exams Answer sheets available for purchase from vendor with whom the NCDPI will establish a sole-source relationship NCDPI will approve Race to the Top Detailed Scope of Work amendments that move funds to pay for administration of the MSLs 2/10/2014 page 61

62 Implementation Guide Part II – Materials Needed Materials for administration MSL Implementation Guide (electronic or paper version) MSL Test Books MSL Answer Sheets Blank paper Number 2 pencils Calculators for some science and math MSLs (students may use their own as long as they are cleared by a teacher prior to testing) Timing device 2/10/2014 page 62

63 Implementation Guide Part II – Handling of Materials Ensure that access to the MSLs is limited by storing in locked location Take steps to prohibit reproduction of any part of the MSLs Distribute only immediately before administration Testing Code of Ethics applies Collect all materials and destroy any test books that students have written in Store clean test books and unused answer sheets from Fall 2012 to use in Spring 2013 (if administered during fall semester) 2/10/2014 page 63

64 Implementation Guide Part II – Secure Environment The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding test administrators and proctors: If the test administrator is the teacher of record for the grade or course, a proctor should be present during the MSL administration Another teacher (not the teacher of record) serve as the test administrator Other methods as determined by LEAs; principals ultimately responsible for security LEAs are not required to use one of the above policies, but should consider security in an environment where student test results play a role in the teachers evaluation 2/10/2014 page 64

65 Implementation Guide Part II – Irregularities LEAs should determine what constitutes an irregularity or misadministration MSL testing irregularities should be investigated and handled at the local level; do not enter into OTISS When a misadministration is declared, the MSL should be administered again after no fewer than five days from the original administration date 2/10/2014 page 65

66 Implementation Guide Part II – Teacher Scoring Many of the MSLs include one or more performance-based tasks The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding scoring of these items: Two teachers with the appropriate content knowledge review and grade the performance-based items (one may be the teacher of record One teacher with the appropriate content knowledge reviews and grades the performance-based items (should not be the teacher of record) Partnerships between neighboring LEAs may be valuable 2/10/2014 page 66

67 Implementation Guide Part II – Scoring The teacher(s) who scored the MSL performance items bubble(s) in the number of points awarded on the student answer sheet Testing staff scores answer sheets in Winscan, which allows for simultaneous capture of points awarded for performance items, scoring of multiple-choice items, and generation of a raw score (percent correct) Raw score (percent correct) can be used in student grade as a final exam 2/10/2014 page 67

68 2/10/2014 page 68

69 2/10/2014 page 69

70 Implementation Guide Part III Each LEA should develop an implementation plan for the MSLs Plans should include: Training for teachers and school administrators on the MSLs (in conjunction with Human Resources staff) How/if MSLs will be used for student accountability (i.e. as final exam grades) How/if parents and guardians will be notified of the MSLs Testing window 2/10/2014 page 70

71 Implementation Guide Part III Training for teachers on how to score the performance- based items (NCDPI module released in early Fall 2012) Administration mode and security Uniform procedures for administration Procedures for the distribution, collection, storage, destruction, or recycling of MSL materials Roles and responsibilities for LEA and school-level staff members 2/10/2014 page 71

72 Implementation Guide Part IV Sample scripts to use for paper and pencil administration 2/10/2014 page 72

73 Local Planning Template

74 Local Planning Templates 2/10/2014 page 74 The NCDPI has designed an optional planning template to assist districts and charter schools with the development of educator effectiveness plans Completion of template is optional: the NCDPI will not request or review

75 Rebecca Garland Chief Academic Officer Angela Quick Deputy Chief Academic Officer Jennifer Preston Race to the Top Project Coordinator for Educator Effectiveness Contact Information 2/10/2014 page 75

76 ASIS Update 2/10/2014 page 76

77 Local Planning Time 2/10/2014 page 77


Download ppt "NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google